Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Usage of the term 'cultural Marxism'

Interesting graphs on the Google Books Ngram Viewer showing the usage of “cultural Marxism” (variously spelled) from 1940 to 1970 and from 1960 to 2019. Big drop in the early 1950s. Maybe something to do with the McCarthy era. — Swood100 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How does this inform our understanding of the meaning of the term? Swood100 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It backs up a statement made in Marxist cultural analysis, but otherwise I don't see the relevance TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead is contradicted by new source

A Happy New Year to all our readers!

The quote from Jerome Jamin added today by Swood100 seems to deny that the conspiracy theory is inherently anti-Semitic, or even necessarily right wing, since Buchanan is said to believe that the threat comes from ‘hard capitalism’ . [1] This contradicts the first sentence of the lead. So I suggest that the first sentence be amended to read: ‘Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory which is generally far-right and antisemitic and which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.’ Sweet6970 (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it merely says that the anti-Semitic and right-wing nature are subtle. See the NYT article about Buchanan: "[Critics] say Mr. Buchanan is speaking in code, using xenophobic images like those or anti-Semitic references to excite bigots without alienating mainstream voters." "Why does he specifically invoke the term "America first," when it is so intimately tied to anti-Semitism? Why, similarly, does he repeatedly attack "New York banks," often Goldman Sachs, when promoting his trade ideas?"[2] TFD (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, but the article in the NY Times is about Mr Buchanan, not about Cultural Marxism, which is never mentioned. The J Jamin source denies that the use of the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ is necessarily racist, or antisemitic, and, in its comment about Mr Buchanan, it implicitly denies that it is right-wing, since opposition to capitalism is generally regarded as left-wing.

My general point is that ‘Cultural Marxism’ is not a well-defined and logically consistent ideology. It’s a conspiracy theory. The people who espouse it have completely different ideas about what the term means. But the lead to this article treats it as if it is an ideology i.e. the lead treats Cultural Marxism as if it exists. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, Buchanan is pro-capitalist, he just has a problem with some capitalists, many of whom happen to be Jews. As the noted right-winger Willi Schlamm once said, "The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists." His boss, William F. Buckley Jr., another non-leftist, criticized American capitalists for being too left-wing. I mentioned Buchanan because he is included in the text: "For Lind, Buchanan and Breivik, the threat does not come from the migrant or the Jew because he is a migrant or a Jew...For Buchanan, the threat comes from atheism, relativism and hard capitalism."

The advocates of the theory often soft-pedal the inherent anti-Semitism by using coded language. That brings in people who otherwise are not anti-Semitic. At some point they realize that the main conspirators are Jews.

Anyway I don't think you have read the exert correctly. It does not say that the conspiracy theory is not necessarily anti-Semitic or right-wing.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

in its comment about Mr Buchanan, it implicitly denies that it is right-wing, since opposition to capitalism is generally regarded as left-wing

In his paper Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right, Jamin definitely includes Buchanan in the group that he is lumping together as the radical right, though I don't think that term has a well-defined meaning. Jamin also wrote:

“Buchanan has also been notable for presenting hard-line attitudes towards migrants, homosexual people and secularists. This has led to him being seen by some as an extremist (even far-right), while others have even viewed his positions against globalisation as ones that mark him out as being on the left, at times causing potential confusion.”

Also, his opposition is not to capitalism but to the combination of atheism, relativism and capitalism. — Swood100 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

While the term radical right can have different meanings, the main meaning is clearly described in Radical right (United States). Basically it means to be to the right of the mainstream right, such as people like George H.W. Bush, whom Buchanan challenged. Anyway Donald Trump claims to be a friend of the working man, complains about certain capitalists, says he opposes war and wants to give everyone $2,000, but is never considered left-wing. While I think that criticism of him has been exaggerated, his rhetoric at least tends to the radical right. TFD (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All the replies to my comment seem to be about Mr Buchanan’s political position. That is not what I was talking about. My point is that there is no consistency in the viewpoints of people who espouse the conspiracy theory. They use the term to mean what they want it to mean. Yet the article gives the impression that they all think the same. This is misleading. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There is as much consistency among supporters of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as there is among supporters of other conspiracy theories, AFAICT. And there is nothing in the Jamin piece that contradicts the statement that Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory. "Avoiding overt racism" does not exclude the underlying theory being antisemitic, and attacking "hard capitalism" does not place anyone on the left. Hell, Hitler attacked hard capitalism. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see we’ve now reached Godwin’s law territory. Please correct me if I am wrong, Newimpartial, but you seem to agree that there is no consistency among the people who espouse the conspiracy theory, yet you also seem to consider that there is a definite theory which they all share. As far as I can see, these 2 views are incompatible. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I said "as much consistency" as "among supporters of other conspiracy theories". WP doesn't have any difficulty characterizing those, either. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sweet6970 Please stop wasting everyone's time here. Yours and Swood100's sealioning on this talk page is repetitive and disruptive, it's not going anywhere other than to ANI, if you keep it up. At best it's a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but either way I think the repetitive nature of these blatant POV pushing attempts is disruptive enough for admins to act, so I'd strongly advise you both to stop. I'd also urge other editors to stop responding to this repetitive and tedious crap. Bacondrum (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You should take your own advice: Don't be rude, personal attacks are prohibited here… If you are not interested in the discussion, stay out of it. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm very interested in this subject, just not editors disrupting Wikipedia endlessly pushing a line that is not going anywhere (otherwise known as Sealioning). Keep it up if you want, the more evidence the stronger the case if/when it goes to the admins. The antisemitic and far-right nature of this conspiracy theory is extremely well established, cherrypicking as many fringe essays as you can isn't going to change that, drop the stick and back slowly away. You and Swood100 are quite blatantly POV pushing here. Your repeated and longwinded attempts to push that POV are disruptive. Bacondrum (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources call it a far-right anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is sufficient for us to do so. We can't change that through argument about how to interpret the conspiracy theory. I would point out however that people who promote anti-Semitic and racist views are not always aware they are doing so and major proponents of far right views tend to disguise their inherent anti-Semitism. Note too that cultural Marxism is not a belief that its proponents hold in isolation, but it comes attached with conspiracy theories about socialism, Hollywood, the media, bankers, neoconservatives, etc., all of which are also anti-Semitic theories.

In any case, I am unlikely to persuade you. It's like getting someone to see a pattern that they don't recognize. The only way they will do so is by looking until eventually it becomes clear. The link between cultural Marxism and anti-Semitism only becomes clear after studying the far right, anti-Semitism and conspiracism.

TFD (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

they’ve both had this all pointed out many times now. Bacondrum (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Thank you for your courteous reply. It seems that I am unlikely to be able to convince you that from the reader’s point of view, this article is self-contradictory and does not make sense. Perhaps we have to wait for the sources to catch up with the vague way the term is currently being used. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Buchanan is not a reliable source. On page 80 of his book "Death of the West" he completely fabricated quotes claiming they were from Herbert Marcuse. This misinformation was later republished in various places, including in right wing documentaries. Here is an extract of one such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgzp9vGx01o "Death of the West" thus fails Wikipedia's editorial standards, and can only be used to prove Buchanan's specific POV (which is thoroughly part of the WP:FRINGE conspiracy theorist camp). 194.223.46.197 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

How can you make such a claim without checking? The quote in question was attributed, on page 80, to “the cultural Marxist” not to Marcuse. Go to https://books.google.com/ , type in “The death of the west”, search it for the phrase “west is guilty” and click on page 80. Don’t believe everything you find in reader comments on YouTube. — Swood100 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The quote on p.80 is actually from William S. Lind, so Buchanan's attribution of it to "a student of Critical Theory" is as good as fabrication. Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the source of the quote was not Marcuse, nor “the cultural Marxist”, but is actually attributable to Lind, as an expression of his viewpoint? Lind "repeats and repeats the charge that the West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture that is has encountered"? That seems unlikely. What reference are you relying on? — Swood100 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is tedious. I am talking about the quotation on p. 80 of Buchanan, introduced by "One student of critical theory defined it as...". The quotation that follows is from William S. Lind "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology", p. 11. The passage you are taking about isn't a quotation at all, and is clearly something that Buchanan made up on his own. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. Lind doesn’t qualify as "a student of Critical Theory" so by referring to him as such Buchanan showed himself to be a liar. Actually, the attribution is to Raymond V. Raehn, not Lind, but I agree that this is tedious, and I would add, inane. — Swood100 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Peterson Confusion.

"In the 2010s, Jordan Peterson popularized Cultural Marxism as a term by moving it into mainstream discourse.[27][34][47] Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech,[27] often misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy" - how do I know all words aren't "stand in terms" for other words. What is this brain rot? 203.129.53.19 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh sorry BTW, "brain rot" is a stand in term for something else. 203.129.53.19 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Minor grammatical issue

@Davide King: The actual Moyn quote began with “That”. If you look at it more closely you’ll see that it is ungrammatical without the “That” within the quotation, and this is why the original editor had to add an [it] into the mix, which didn’t quite solve the problem.

“That ‘cultural Marxism’ is a crude slander, referring to something that does not exist, unfortunately does not mean actual people are not being set up to pay the price, as scapegoats to appease a rising sense of anger and anxiety.”

— Swood100 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sealioning around antisemitism needs to stop

Anti-semetic = "hostile to or prejudiced against Jewish people", Cultural Marxism originated as an attack on The Frankfurt School, which the fabricators of this theory specifically noted "were, to a man, Jewish" -William S. Lind.

Likewise, it falls into a category of conspiracy theory - namely it's the "Systemic conspiracy theory" type according to Barkun. It is so common, as to be given as the first example on the Conspiracy Theory page (eg Conspiracies about: "Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church").

Early proponents attended holocaust denial conferences specifically to promote the theory among the far-right.

It parallels, and has even been noted to extend from the Nazi theories of Cultural Bolshevism and Judeo Bolshivism (easy conceptual links to make, and specifically in the (Paul Renner, a German typographer was the first to take umbrage at being called a Cultural Bolshevist by the Nazis directly, who singled him out as a modernist in the style of Apollinaire). He responded with an essay titled "Cultural BOlshevism?").

The Frankfurt School were specifically anti-fascists from Germany, they escaped the Nazis in the 1930s. Although one of their number: Walter Benjamin (a poet), did not make it.

Ben Shapiro's Jewish heritage does not excuse him from anything. Just as black people can hold racist and erroneous views about OTHER black people, so can White people be racist to other white people, and yes - so Jews can both be Jewish, and hold negative and stereotyped opinions about Jewish people.

Some ideas of the alt-right do overlap with some of Jordon Peterson's. "Fourth Turning" theory for instances, is promoted occasionally at the Jordan Peterson sub-reddit, as are man traditionalist and conservative ideas. He and Shapiro appear on similar podcasts open to these ideas, and are associates. The phrase "Cultural Marxism" can be found in many posts there by searching that subreddit.

The problem with all your arguments is that they show an utter ignorance of Wikipedia's purpose and policies. There's a policy page for what makes a source authoritive WP:RS - there's one for how to argue correctly on wikipedia WP:talk and many for what NOT to do on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is here to REPORT on sources, not to make arguments, but to state facts and report on sources. If the majority of sources from experts agree - it goes in. If a minority disagree, it might get a brief mention, but doesn't actually have to be covered at all (encyclopedias are generalist documents with specific and imperfect information, as all databases).

Relevant expertise in this case would require someone to be from the academic humanities most likely. Perhaps a historical expert on leftwing cultural movements in those countries (Germany & America), of that era (1910s - 1980s). Preferably someone with a background in Cultural Studies, or the history of Western Marxism... So yeah, basically that's who holds the facts of the matter. They know The Frankfurt School best, and so can either verify or invalidate the claims of the (unqualified) conspiracy theorists. There is a consensus that due to it's anti-semitic origins, usage, history, and promotion, it is entirely fair for Wikipedia to state "Cultural Marxism, is a far-right, anti-semitic, conspiracy theory." Perhaps if you disagree with that, you should get an academic education in what The Frankfurt School were ACTUALLY SAYING, so that you can compare it to the ambient claims you see as incorrect around the Cultural Marxism conspiracy. 123.243.234.154 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the sealioning around antisemitism needs to stop. We've heard quite enough now, it's going nowhere, never was going anywhere to begin with. Bacondrum (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Suella Braverman and the Board of Deputies of British Jews

@Davide King: You have deleted the inf about the Board of Deputies of British Jews apologising to Suella Braverman for accusing her of antisemitism, whilst keeping the reference. Is this your intention? We now have a statement in the article that the Board condemned Ms Braverman as antisemitic, when in fact they withdrew this. This is a BLP issue. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970, that is more relevant for her own article. The Board of Deputies of British Jews does not contradict what other sources have reported, i.e. that she used or referred to the conspiracy theory. The theory is antisemitic but since it has been 'mainstreamised', people who may not be personally antisemitic, unconsciously or not, whether they realise it or not, are believing in the conspiracy theory. Davide King (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That same source notes "Mrs Braverman, the MP for Fareham, was alerted to this connection by journalist Dawn Foster but defended using the term." Davide King (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not the point. This is a BLP issue, and we should not be misinforming readers by saying that the Board condemned Ms Braverman, when in fact they apologised to her. You thanked me for this edit when I originally added the inf about the apology. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not a BLP issue because we are not saying she is antisemitic, we are saying she promoted the conspiracy theory, which the article about the Board's apology is not; it is about her being antisemitic but sources and text do not say she is antisemitic, just that she promoted the conspiracy theory, which is true and she knew about it. The Board's apology only says that she is not antisemitic, not that she did not promoted the conspiracy theory, which they note it is antisemitic. That same source notes "Mrs Braverman, the MP for Fareham, was alerted to this connection by journalist Dawn Foster but defended using the term." In addition, it is not Jewish groups and MPs are saying Farage has promoted the conspiracy theory as an antisemitic dog-whistle, they are condemning for it; that he has used antisemitic dog-whistle is stated as 'fact', with The Guardian explaining it is "a term originating in a conspiracy theory based on a supposed plot against national governments, which is closely linked to the far right and antisemitism." So it makes no sense to say "[t]he Board of Deputies of British Jews has said that Nigel Farage has promoted the cultural Marxist conspiracy as dog-whistle code for antisemitism in the United Kingdom" when the source does not support this wording; the Board is condemning him over antisemitic dog-whistles. Davide King (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The article says ‘Her use of the conspiracy theory was condemned as hate speech…’ This means she has been accused of antisemitism. Therefore, it is important to show that the Board does not consider her to be antisemitic.

(See the separate section below about the Guardian article and Nigel Farage.) Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Since when hate speech is synonym with antisemitism? Islamophobia, among others, is hate speech too. Since we are not saying she is antisemitic, just that she has promoted the conspiracy theory, which even the Board did not dispute, it is not relevant to this article but to her. The Board is retracting that she is antisemitic but we never wrote she is antisemitic, just that she has promoted the conspiracy theory, so I see no issue or BLP violations. Davide King (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Same thing for Farage, Peterson et al. We are not saying they are antisemites, we are saying they have promoted the conspiracy theory. Whether that makes them antisemites is a matter to be discussed at their own articles, if it is something notable, not here, which is about the conspiracy theory. Davide King (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Re Suella Braverman only:

The only possible ‘hate speech’ in this context is antisemitism. If you accuse someone of hate speech, you are accusing them of trying to stir up hatred against the group in question. The only possible interpretation of the statement Her usage of the conspiracy theory was condemned as hate speech by other MPs, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the anti-racist organization Hope Not Hate. is that she has been accused of antisemitism. This is a very serious allegation. If this allegation is not intended, then the statement should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it says "[h]er usage of the conspiracy theory was condemned as hate speech." So that still means her usage of the conspiracy theory was antisemitic, not that she was antisemitic herself, hence why I felt there was no need for it and that the same source could be instead used to report "Mrs Braverman, the MP for Fareham, was alerted to this connection by journalist Dawn Foster but defended using the term." It would be helpful if more users could weight in rather than going back and forth between you and I. Davide King (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: If we say that a theory is being used in an antisemitic way, this is an accusation of antisemitism by the person concerned. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that is the case. Sources are not saying she is antisemitic but that she promoted the conspiracy theory; and scholarly analysis discusses how the conspiracy theory is propagated by people who are not antisemites or Nazis themselves, yet the conspiracy theory remains antisemitic and an antisemitic dog whistle. The Board's apology is more about her alleged antisemitism than the conspiracy theory, hence why I think that is for her own article since here we are not saying she is antisemite or that she was accused of being one; we are saying she promoted the conspiracy theory and she was aware of the term, that is all. Davide King (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970, if you want other editors to respond then you should consider providing a link to the edit you are arguing against. TFD (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: As far as I am concerned, this matter has been resolved. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Quotation needed template

On my reading of relevant guidelines, the appropriate context for requesting quotation is if the source is in another language. I don't understand why Emir of Wikipedia is going around adding the quotation needed template to random English language citations. Is there a reason to do this or is this just disruptive editing? Bacondrum (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What are these guidelines, because the page you linked literally says "This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or that the editor has interpreted the source correctly." Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please undo my self revert to restore my edits? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you not send me the edit warring template again. This is beginning to seem like disruptive editing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, seems disruptive to me, littering the article with "quotation needed" templates. The sources are in English, you can read. If there's a particular issue with a source you can discuss it here. Don't edit war. Bacondrum (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

An editor is free to put in quotation needed templates. The template says ""This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or that the editor has interpreted the source correctly.", it does not say it can't be used on a source that is English. What seems disruptive is using a deceptive edit summary saying " I see no reason all these citations need quotes", when you are making edits other than just removing those tags. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you seriously just accuse me of edit warring again when you undid my self-revert, even though I came here to discuss? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that was a self revert, restored everything except the excess quotation needed templates. This is why edit warring is a problem, things get messy. I can't see why all those quotation needed templates are warranted. Why not just add the quotes if you think quotes are needed? Bacondrum (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I mixed up the tags. It looks like the page had been reorganised a bit since my last edit. I have corrected my self and put the the failed verification and better source needed tags. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool, sorry for the misunderstanding. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Now I just need to figure out where the quotes were needed or if that is all fixed now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope we are clear that the "quotation needed" template was not the right one in these cases. As far as the Braune and Kesvani sources are concerned, the Braune shouldn't be cited where it stands in Origins, and I suspect it arrived there out of precious slice and dicing of material characterizing the CT. Meanwhile, I understand that Kesvani is in the "Voices" section and might be understood as an op-ed; however, all the citation is actually doing is pointing to two readily verified primary sources that document what the sentence is saying; I would make the argument that in such an instance it is more elegant to cite the analysis that lends weight to these sources rather than the primary sources themselves, but the statement they are supporting seems quite obviously to have been backed up by this evidence in toto. In general I think editors have a tendency to read op-ed sources without great consistency, regarding them as reliable when the editor agrees with statements in the op-ed and as unreliable when they disagree. In this instance Kesvani is pointing to clear evidence while lending it weight, and I don't think the article is relying on Kesvani's expertise in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Another good journal paper

An interesting read about media and the conspiracy: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335680303_The_Alt-Right%27s_Discourse_of_%27Cultural_Marxism%27_-_A_Political_Instrument_of_Intersectional_Hate Bacondrum (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe try disambiguation?

I have been thinking about the constant attacks on this page, and I occurs to me that an attempt to disambiguate between reality and conspiracy theory might be worth trying. So in the domain of things that actually happen, we have Critical Theory and Postmodernism as academic movements originating in the Marxist and Post-Marxist left, and we have Identity politics and Intersectionality that Venn more into the domain of political strategy, I'm not saying it would have to be exactly these that are used, but disambiguating e.g. those four topics from the Cultural Marxism CT article, in the usual way, might at least cut down the flow rate of abuse of Talk page guidelines while pointing some readers to where they actually want to go. And disambiguation doesn't imply any actual connection between the reality and the CT, which is somewhat important in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the risk there is that we end up with a POV fork where the IDW theory of "cultural marxism" (i.e. "I am not getting the adulation I deserve, must be all those marxists") is reflected as if it were anything other than the self-serving bollocks it is. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that I wasn't clear. I am not suggesting a disambiguation page for Cultural Marxism (which would indeed be a magnet for further hijinx) but rather disambiguation notices at the top of the CT page. Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should take the feelings of conspiracy theorists into account. TFD (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I tend to lean towards TFD's view, but I guess we could, there's something similar at Jewish Bolshevism. Bacondrum (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Listing promoters

I don't think we should list individuals who promote the CT. Look at other similar CT's like Blood libel. The list is problematic for a number of reasons. Who do we include? Where does it end? The list could be endless. And the list starts making the article look like a black list of people being shamed for espousing the CT rather than an encyclopedic article - it's inviting tendentious editing. I think notable proponents should be included in the article and the history of the CT rather than listed the way we do and some are probably not due for inclusion. What do others think? Bacondrum (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

My general preference is to avoid lists in non-list articles, so my tendency is to agree. However, the list is currently the main treatment in the article of the spread of the conspiracy theory in the 21st century, so I would like to see that treatment developed in another format. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think most of it is due and should be kept, just developed in prose rather than a list. A subsection about its 21st century proponents in the history section? I'm happy to do the work if others agree to treating that content that way. Bacondrum (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the article I think we should create a history section drawn from and including most the info in the lists. Bacondrum (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Daily Kos

What makes Daily Kos a WP:RS to use here despite what it says at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that non-green sources may be used if an expert has written from it and that exception may be for authors. In this case, the author is David Neiwart, also author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump; and the piece was cited by Braune. Davide King (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Excessive citations for Breivik quote

Should this page include the excessive citations for Breivik quote with the sourcing (not defined here) below? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Breivik wrote that the "sexually transmitted disease (STD) epidemic in Western Europe is a result of cultural Marxism", that "Cultural Marxism defines Muslims, feminist women, homosexuals, and some additional minority groups, as virtuous, and they view ethnic Christian European men as evil" and that the "European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg is a cultural-Marxist-controlled political entity." Sources

• Yes, I think that 4 cites for 1 quote is excessive, I've removed two and left one each of the strongest news and academic sources, bundled them also. Bacondrum (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, especially if those same sources are already used elsewhere, so no source would be lost. However, I disagree with the bundling; it is only two refs now and I do not see the need to bundle, especially if at least one of the sources is also already used elsewhere in the article. Davide King (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it a conspiracy theory if it exists?

Is the claim for the page's subject matter somehow that the term "Cultural Marixism" doesn't exist, or if it does exist, it's merely as a conspiracy theory?

The term "Cultural marxism" obviously exists as a real academic term used in critical theory departments, so how it could be just a "conspiracy theory" is beyond me:

Marxism and Neo-Marxism

Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, scholars like Terry Eagleton and Fredric Jameson were explicit in embracing Marxism. They rejected the New Critical approaches that divorced literature from culture, stressing that literature reflected class and economic interest, social and political structures, and power. Accordingly, they considered how literary texts reproduced (or undermined) cultural or economic structures and conditions.

Slavoj Žižek arguably has done more than any member of the Frankfurt School to integrate psychoanalysis into Marxist variants. “Žižek’s scholarship holds a particularly high place within cultural criticism that seeks to account for the intersections between psychoanalysis and Marxism,” wrote the scholar Erin Labbie.[1] She added, “Žižek’s prolific writings about ideology, revealing the relationships between psychoanalysis and Marxism, have altered the way in which literary and cultural criticism is approached and accomplished to the extent that most scholars can no longer hold tightly to the former notion that the two fields are at odds.”[2] Žižek is just one among many continental philosophers whose Marxist and Marxist-inflected prognostications command the attention of American academics.

Cultural Marxism Is Real

Much of the outcry about cultural Marxism is outrageous, uninformed, and conspiratorial. Some of it simplifies, ignores, or downplays the fissures and tensions among leftist groups and ideas. Cultural Marxism cannot be reduced, for instance, to “political correctness” or “identity politics.” (I recommend Andrew Lynn’s short piece “Cultural Marxism” in the Fall 2018 issue of The Hedgehog Review for a concise critique of sloppy and paranoid treatments of cultural Marxism.)

Nevertheless, Marxism pervades Theory, despite the competition among the several ideas under that broad label. Sometimes this Marxism is self-evident; at other times, it’s residual and implied. At any rate, it has attained a distinct but evolving character as literary scholars have reworked classical Marxism to account for the relation of literature and culture to class, power, and discourse.

Allen Mendenhall is an associate dean at Faulkner University Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and executive director of the Blackstone & Burke Center for Law & Liberty. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/01/cultural-marxism-is-real/

Many different versions of cultural studies have emerged in the past decades.While during its dramatic period of global expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, cultural studies was often identified with the approach to culture and society developed by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England, their sociological,materialist, and political approaches to culture had predecessors in a number of currents of cultural Marxism. Many 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs,Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life. Traditions of cultural Marxism are thus important to the trajectory of cultural studies and to understanding its various types and forms in the present age. https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

Douglas Kellner Distinguished Research Professor of Education, UCLA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.156.79 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death on this talk page already. The new thing in your post is that none of your quotes even contain the term "cultural marxism"... which makes this even more far-fetched than the previous attempts. (the exception of course being Kellner, who's essay still hasn't been published I see) Mvbaron (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

How? Plainjosh (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Read the article first, then check the references. Newimpartial (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Far-Right" is subjective POV content and a weasel word.

I removed the term "far-right" from the descriptor as what qualifies as "far" is subjective, and is relative to a given POV that it is "far from." The only way to make it objective is to show it's distance from the center of a given Overton Window. However given that viewing the social effects of critical theory as a societal problem is the predominant view of one of the two major parties, it can not be very far from the center. This being the case I've removed it as the entire notion is itself subjective, and doesn't even on the edge of the general range of views in the current Overton Window. If anyone wants to change it please talk about it here and do not just reinsert it into the article. Thanks. Jfraatz (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)jfraatz

Far right is a well known term used to describe among other things people who believe in conspiracy theories such as cultural Marxism. While we could argue whether they are right wing or left wing, that's an etymological fallacy. That's what they are called, just as Caribbean islands are called the West Indies, although they are nowhere near India. TFD (talk)

• This is a WP:FORUM Style discussion. It should be deleted or archived. Bacondrum 07:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • While this may well be true, my belief is that the community benefits from some of these discussions being readily visible on this Talk page, so new "guest" editors are less encouraged to "re-invent the (square) wheel", thinking that they are the first to raise such issues. Newimpartial (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I had to reply because the guest editor deleted text that I wanted to restore. TFD (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Jfraatz

We are all locked out of this article now by CambridgeBayWeather simply because of one disruptive user Jfraatz. I think this makes no sense at all, we are being collectively punished because of one disrupive editor, Surely the disruptive editor should be blocked for edit warring, and that should be the end of the story - the rest of us can continue to contribute constructively as we have been doing all along. This is a silly way to deal with a disruptive editor and only serves to build anamocity towards them. CambridgeBayWeather Please remove the full protection and block only the disruptive editor. Bacondrum 01:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a request at WP:RFPP and I acted on it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Bacondrum 07:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit protection is not a punishment. If you want an edit to be made you can use the edit request template. WP:ANI or WP:EW are the places to request an editor to be blocked, not here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Unsupported claims regarding Peterson and Farage

Extended content

Article states "Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech, often misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy", referenced source makes no mention of Peterson using "postmodernism" as a stand-in for "cultural marxism". Assuming someone who frequently uses the term "postmodernism" actually means "cultural marxism" is just willful misrepresentation unless you can establish that the speaker considers the two things to be interchangeable. In a similar vein it is stated as fact in the UK section that Nigel Farage uses "cultural marxism", as an anti-semitic dogwhistle, a serious accusation that Farage denies, source is a guardian article that claims cultural marxism is an anti-semitic dogwhistle, it does not establish on any factual basis that this is how Farage intends or uses the term. I appreciate that these figures are unpopular with some people but there's no way you can justify these kinds of claims with the current references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.199.53 (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Scholarly analysis says that postmodernist philosophers are commonly alleged to be 'Cultural Marxists', the given source says "'post-structuralist' (or 'postmodernist')", with the latter, alongside 'neo-Marxist' being indeed used as a stand-in for the conspiracy theory, in spite of the fact the Frankfurt School theorists being directly in opposition to the theories promoted by postmodernist philosophers. We already write at Jordan Peterson that "Peterson's perspectives on the influence of postmodernism on North American humanities departments have been compared to Cultural Marxist conspiracy theories." As for Farage, he did actually say 'Cultural Marxism', so there is no excuse that he did not say that. See also MANDY. Davide King (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC) These are specific claims about intentionality that are unsupported. Saying that postmodernist philosophers are commonly alleged to be cultural Marxists in no way establishes than when Peterson criticises postmodernism this is a stand-in for cultural marxism. Otherwise you could claim that anyone who talks about postmodernism is really talking about cultural marxism, from where are you deriving this claim about his intended meaning when using the word postmodernism? Farage at least did indeed use the term cultural marxism, but the article states that he intended this as an anti-Semitic dog-whistle, again, from where are you deriving this claim about intent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.199.53 (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC) We are not even outright saying that Peterson is a proponent of the conspiracy theory, just that he has popularised the term and moved it into the mainstream, all the while misusing the term postmodernism, both of which are true and supported by reliable sources and scholarly analysis. As written here, "[a]ppearing in videos such as 'Identity Politics & the Marxist Lie of White Privilege' (Peterson 2018) and 'Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism' (Peterson 2017), Peterson has tapped into the alt-right’s discourse of cultural Marxism and cashed in on the anxiety and anger of a large and growing alt-right fan base (Southey 2017). Peterson is not a fascist and he often says he hates Nazis, but Peterson's deployment of 'cultural Marxism' as a term of opprobrium when ranting against 'political correctness' and 'social justice' in Canada appeals to reactionaries worldwide. Every usage of 'cultural Marxism' is not essentially fascist, but this phrase is used by contemporary fascists as an ideological weapon. When Peterson berates 'cultural Marxism,' he may be helping the alt-right bring its conspiracy theory of hate into the mainstream (Berlatsky 2018)." Or as written here, "Peterson has tweaked this argument a bit. In his lectures, he mostly traces cultural rot to postmodernists like Derrida (whose work Peterson comically garbles) rather than to the Frankfurt School. In Peterson's new book, though, he does explicitly link postmodernism to the Frankfurt school, and in other venues he regularly uses and approves the term 'cultural Marxism.' One of his videos is titled 'Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism.' On Facebook, he shared a Daily Caller article titled 'Cultural Marxism Is Destroying America' that begins, with outright racism, 'Yet again an American city is being torn apart by black rioters.' The article goes on to blame racial tension in the U.S. on ... you guessed it: the Frankfurt School." As for Farage, you wrote it yourself "Farage at least did indeed use the term cultural marxism" and that "the article states that he intended this as an anti-Semitic dog-whistle." You seem to believe that Cultural Marxism is not antisemitic but this was discussed at length and both of those articles explains this. In addition, many on the left are not personally antisemitic but some of them are called as such because, whether they realise it or not, in their criticism of Zionism and Israel, some of them may indeed be using antisemitic undertones, so the same happens here. Even if Jordan Peterson may not be personally antisemitic, that does not mean that the conspiracy theory, which he helped popularise to the mainstream as reported by reliable sources and scholarly analysis, suddenly stops being an antisemitic dog-whistle. Davide King (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC) You seem to view any criticism of post-modernism and of the Frankfurt school as an opportunity to ascribe all sorts of nefarious motives to people, but that's not how an encyclopedia works. In order to ascribe a motive to an individual, or to state that when they say "A" they actually mean "B", you need evidence. In the context of philosophical or political views the only real evidence you're likely to get is the person's own account of their motives and meaning, whether that's an account given publicly or privately. Perhaps I can demonstrate what I mean by example. An encylopedia might say something like: "A number of critics have suggested the term "Cultural Marxism" has anti-semitic or far-right implications and it has been described as a "dog-whistle code for antisemitism". People who have used the term include Nigel Farage, yadda yadda yadda." Where as what we have currently is: "Nigel Farage has promoted the cultural Marxist conspiracy as dog-whistle code for antisemitism in the United Kingdom" If Farage denies this and if there's no actual evidence presented that he intends or means the term to be taken as a dog-whistle for antisemitism then the statement becomes impossible to justify. It's one thing to claim the term is associated with anti-semitism, it's another thing to extend that to claim an anti-semitic intent on the part of anyone who uses the term, regardless of their meaning or understanding of the term. This straw-manning slight of hand is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.176.245 (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC) First of all, that is a strawman. I provided quotes from sources which report how proponents of the conspiracy theory explicitly ties it both to the Frankfurt School and 'post-modernism'. As for Farage, he literally mentioned Cultural Marxism and you can not assume that he did not mean exactly what he meant by it either. He said 'Cultural Marxism' and scholarly analysis show us exactly what it means. Given source concludes "Farage's representatives did not respond to a request for comment", so it is not even true that he denied it and we have not to worry about it since he did not comment further and it is original research on your part to assume he did not mean exactly what he meant to say. Ironically, "that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia" actually applies to your comments and suggestions. That you do not like the scholarly analysis does not change the facts as reported by reliable sources. Your wording is wrong and misleading as it is not been 'critics' who said that, but scholarly analysis. Scholarly analysis says that Cultural Marxism has indeed antisemitic, far-right implications and has been described as a dog-whistle code for antisemitism. Some of proponents of Cultural Marxism may not realise this but it is what it is. I redirect you to MANDY. Davide King (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC) A number of critics have suggested... demonstrates the underlying issue. Calling them "critics" misses the point. Reliable sources have documented this. They have not "suggested" this as a vague possibility, and the conspiracy theory's direct connection to antisemitism, including terrorism, is indisputable. Dismissing this as nebulous "criticism" would falsely imply that this is subjective opinion, or that it is disputed by others who are equally credible. The article should present the mainstream position according to reliable sources. Whether or not those sources are "critics" is a distraction, at best. Also, it's ironically postmodern to try and analyze Farage and Peterson's supposed intentions for context, but this only highlights the gap between this conspiracy theory and the underlying ideas. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC) These are some really unsubstantiated leaps, establishing that critics of postmodernism may link it to cultural marxism does not justify the claim that when any particular individual says one he means the other, unless you have some evidence that relates to the individual and their intent. Otherwise you could substitute any potentially linked term for any other and claim that's what the speaker meant, that's not a reasonable way to report someone's views. Similarly, the article makes a positive and definite claim that Farage's use was intended as an antisemitic dog-whistle, but your justification of this is that "scholarly analysis shows us exactly what it means". I'm puzzled by how you seem to think language works, particularly given it has already been established people use the term "cultural marxism" in a variety of different ways. What Farage means by "cultural marxism" is not determined by what Braune writes in the Journal of Social Justice, it's determined by Farage. Your argument isn't even internally consistent because if cultural marxism really did only have one possible meaning then it couldn't function as a dog-whistle could it? As to the critics and the sources involved, which specifically do you feel establishes "objectively" a single meaning for this term that is universal to all speakers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.176.245 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Failing evidence to the contrary, we rightly assume Farage and Peterson know precisely what they are saying when they say it. Certainly it beggars belief to suggest that either of them does not know what is meant by the term, anyone who is invested in politics in any meaningful way knows this term and its meaning. We don't need to cite that the sky is blue, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Bacondrum (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Who said anything about "objectively"? Again, it's ironically postmodern to try and dispute what is and is not "objective" based on context. Reliable sources are pretty consistent in defining what "cultural Marxism" means -It's a conspiracy theory which uses the specter of Marxism to imply nefarious intent. It is not appropriate to editorialize, especially about fringe topics. There will always be outliers who craft a boutique definition in support of their causes. We are not obligated to play stupid to this sophistry. reliable sources have analyzed conspiracy theory. We reflect reliable sources. This article is not a platform for public relations from Farage or anyone else, so his meaning, if it's worth discussing at all, must be supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC) This discussion has drifted away from the wording of the article, and its support (or otherwise) from the sources. (1)The IP is correct on the point originally made: there is nothing in the source cited (M Sharpe, ‘The Conversation’ ) to support the wording regarding Peterson: ‘….often misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy’, so I have deleted those words. If they are to be reinstated, a source to support them is required. (2) The source N Berlatsky (Pacific Standard) says: ‘Peterson isn't an ideological anti-Semite; there's every reason to believe that when he re-broadcasts fascist propaganda, he doesn't even hear the dog-whistles he's emitting. ‘ It is also of interest that according to the Jewish Chronicle source I recently added in connection with Suella Braverman, the Board of Deputies of British Jews accepted that Ms Braverman was not antisemitic. So there are 2 sources which I think say, roughly, that the ‘Cultural Marxism’ theory can be interpreted as antisemitic, but that those who say they are opposed to ‘Cultural Marxism’ might not realise this. Does anyone have a suggested wording to cover this aspect? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC) The Berlatsky source is one of many which directly supports the point you have removed. I have adjusted the placement of the citations accordingly. Gain consensus before removing this content again. Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC) (1) I checked both the Berlatsky and the Sharpe sources before I deleted the words ‘often misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy’ and before I made the statement on this Talk page. Neither of the references says this. You should either provide another reference supporting this wording, or you should self-revert. Consensus cannot override the need to have statements supported by a source. (2) Do you have any suggested wording on my second point? Sweet6970 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC) I correctly moved the refs as it is Berlatsky that explicitly make the point, writing: "Peterson has tweaked this argument a bit. In his lectures, he mostly traces cultural rot to postmodernists like Derrida (whose work Peterson comically garbles) rather than to the Frankfurt School. In Peterson's new book, though, he does explicitly link postmodernism to the Frankfurt school, and in other venues he regularly uses and approves the term 'cultural Marxism.' One of his videos is titled 'Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism.' On Facebook, he shared a Daily Caller article titled 'Cultural Marxism Is Destroying America' that begins, with outright racism, 'Yet again an American city is being torn apart by black rioters.' The article goes on to blame racial tension in the U.S. on ... you guessed it: the Frankfurt School." So where is the issue? You are free to suggest a re-wording to better represent what sources say but that postmondernism is misunderstood and has been discussed as part of the conspiracy theory is not disputed. Scholarly analysis also shows that postmdernism and postmodernist philosophers, who are frequently individuated by proponents of the conspiracy theory as leading examples of Cultural Marxism, are misunderstood as the Frankfurt School was in direct opposition to them and none were part of an active movement or international conspiracy to destroy Western civilisation. Davide King (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC) From the source I just added: Peterson proposed that funding for Liberal Arts programs across the province—and indeed, across Canada and everywhere—be slashed, not because of failing enrollments or incompetent students, but because students are (allegedly) being brainwashed by Left-wing professors who inculcate them with “cultural Marxism” and “postmodernism”—terms he uses interchangeably— And further down the section it makes it clear that this usage is inaccurate: Peterson blames this state of affairs on postmodernism, which he takes to be an offshoot or expression of “cultural Marxism” or “neo-Marxism.” But rightly or wrongly, for better or worse, Marxism is really an extension of the Enlightenment project, whereas postmodernism is rooted in the anti-Enlightenment sensibilities of Nietzsche and Heidegger --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Aquillion, this was really helpful, thank you. Perhaps this should be clarified at Jordan Peterson#Postmodernism and identity politics? We just says "as well as other fields of study that he believes are corrupted by 'post-modern neo-Marxists'" (previously, it stated, without quotation marks, Neo-Marxist ideology) but perhaps we may add or clarify that "post-modern neo-Marxists" is a contradiction in terms and that he has used post-modernism as a stand in term for cultural Marxism. Davide King (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC) @Aquillion: Thank you for providing the new source, which is much more to the point. I can only access the Abstract, so thank you for providing the quotations. @Davide King: I do not agree that the Berlatsky source supports the existing wording. There is nothing in it about ‘misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy’. Rather than this wording, I suggest we closely follow the new source, so that the sentence becomes: ‘Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech, and mistakenly takes postmodernism to be an offshoot or expression of cultural Marxism.’ Sweet6970 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC) On reflection, this reads a little oddly, as there does not seem to be any obvious connection between pronouns and post-modernism. So perhaps these should be 2 separate sentences: ‘Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech. He also mistakenly takes postmodernism to be an offshoot or expression of cultural Marxism.’ Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC) I do not see any benefit to this change. The confusion here comes from Peterson himself, who has decided to incorrectly use these terms interchangeably despite many, many opportunities to correct this error. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC) The benefit of this change is that the proposed wording would better align with the source. I note that you do not have any objection to the change. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC) "I do not see any benefit to this change." = "I object to this change". Civil POV pushing is still POV pushing. Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC) I object to the accusation of POV pushing, which has been made without any explanation or evidence. What is your objection to the proposed change in the wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Your comments are the evidence. Peterson is wrong about this, per many sources. He is not qualified to explain the topic for multiple reasons, so how he "takes" this would have to be contextualized by a reliable source. The above source provides this context, but your change would bypass this. Ignoring this context and including the line anyway is a form of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC) @Grayfell:(1) Stop making baseless accusations. Surely you know that this is not allowed, per WP:NPA. (2) You say ‘Peterson is wrong’. My proposed wording says ’ He also mistakenly takes postmodernism to be an offshoot or expression of cultural Marxism.’. i.e. I am proposing that the article should say that Peterson is mistaken. Would you accept ‘He also wrongly takes postmodernism to be an offshoot or expression of cultural Marxism.’? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Sweet6970 You are flogging a dead horse. Please don't WP:bludgeon the debate. Bacondrum (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC) @Bacondrum: This discussion has only recently started, when User:Aquillion helpfully provided a new source. So there is no equine corpse, and I am not bludgeoning anyone. According to the quote provided by Aquillion, the new source says: ‘Peterson blames this state of affairs on postmodernism, which he takes to be an offshoot or expression of “cultural Marxism” or “neo-Marxism”. But rightly or wrongly, for better or worse, Marxism is really an extension of the Enlightenment project, whereas postmodernism is rooted in the anti-Enlightenment sensibilities of Nietzsche and Heidegger.’I have proposed the wording: ’ He also mistakenly takes postmodernism to be an offshoot or expression of cultural Marxism.’ as a summary of this. I am trying to follow the source more closely than the current wording in the article. Do you object to the proposed wording|? If so, what do you propose as an alternative? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC) My apologies, I thought you were just rerunning the IP's arguements. Yes, I think something like this works "He incorrectly takes postmodernism to be an offshoot or expression of cultural Marxism." would be fair and accurate. Bacondrum (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC) @Grayfell: It is now more than 24 hours since I pinged you, and there has been no response from you. I prefer User:Bacondrum's version to my original suggestion, as it avoids the awkward ‘mistakenly takes’. If you do not respond in the next 24 hours, I will assume that you agree with this wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC) As I said I do not think this is an improvement, and by distancing Peterson's misuse of the term from the conspiracy theory, this change would whitewash the article to make Peterson's position more reasonable. This is, obviously, totally inappropriate. Peterson is "blaming" this for a reason. Changing this to imply that this reason is a "mistake" is both editorializing, and also unrelated to the topic of the article. Remember that this article is about a conspiracy theory Peterson has a documented history of pushing. As I've tried to explain to you many times, we have to look at what these sources are saying in context, not merely as cherry-picked factoids. Further, I consider your ultimatum to be inappropriate. To not ping me again for any reason. There is no deadline. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Yeah, Grayfell is spot on, reading over the sources again and all the arguments, this does actually look like an attempt to make Peterson look like he bumbled into a conspiracy theory, which with his level of education in his field begs credulity, he’d know exactly what he was saying and no source suggests didn’t. And ultimatums are not on, there’s no rush. Bacondrum (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC) For what is worth it, I too agree with Bacondrum and Grayfell's take. Davide King (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC) I do not make ultimatums. In the absence of any response from the other editor, I was trying to find out whether they had any objection to Bacondrum’s suggested wording, before I made the change. There is no deadline; there is no virtue in delay. User:Bacondrum has referred to attempting to make it look as if Peterson ‘bumbled into a conspiracy theory’. I am not attempting to make Mr Peterson look stupid, though, on reflection, I can see that my original suggested wording ‘mistaken’ might allow for that interpretation. I am attempting to get a wording in the article which is securely supported by the source. The other editor used the word ‘incorrectly’ in their post of 11 November: The confusion here comes from Peterson himself, who has decided to incorrectly use these terms interchangeably despite many, many opportunities to correct this error. and it was suggested by Bacondrum, but when I say I agree with it, it seems that it becomes unacceptable, and a sign of some nefarious purpose. I did suggest previously that the wording could be ‘He also wrongly takes postmodernism to be an offshoot or expression of cultural Marxism.’ Does anyone have any other suggestions for the wording to summarise the source? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC) I do not think this change is necessary, and the proposal is still too simplistic to properly summarize the source. Since he is not a topic expert, and also has a documented history of being completely wrong, we would need a specific reason to present this as his "take", and that reason would need to come from the same source. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC) As you are saying that the proposed wording is too simplistic to properly summarise the source, then a possibility would be to include the whole of the quotation supplied by Aquillion. Alternatively, since you say ‘we would need a specific reason to present this as his “take” ‘, are you saying that there should be nothing at all about his conflation of postmodernism and the conspiracy theory, i.e. that the current wording: ‘often misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy’ should be deleted? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Aquillion, Bacondrum, The Four Deuces, Grayfell and Newimpartial, a similar discussion is ongoing at Talk:Jordan Peterson. I did use the wording suggested by Sweet6970 but it was partially reverted. Davide King (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Thank you for the notification. Although this was my original suggestion, I now prefer 'incorrectly' to 'mistakenly'. I am watching the discussion on Jordan Peterson, but I have not so far commented, because my interest in, and knowledge of, Mr Peterson is limited. I would suggest that whatever wording is agreed there should be used in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC) @Davide King: I was hoping that the discussion on the Jordan Peterson talk page would end in a wording which could be used in this article. But the discussion on that page seems to have stalled, and the current wording in that article would not fit into this article. What wording do you favour for this article? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Sweet6970, I think the wording on both page is fine now. Davide King (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)